Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses that the tool returns matching endpoints with latest verdicts and a count, which is useful. However, it does not mention behavior under no matches, pagination, performance implications, or the meaning of the sort and limit parameters. It gives a basic but not comprehensive behavioral picture.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact, front-loading the core action and then providing key details in a single sentence. It avoids extraneous information and is easy to parse. The usage hint is appended efficiently without bloat.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (search functionality, multiple outputs, parameters), the description covers the essential purpose and one behavioral outcome (returns up to limit endpoints). However, it lacks details on sort functionality, error behavior, and result structure, which might be important for an agent to use it correctly. It is adequate for basic calls but leaves gaps for sophisticated usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. The description mentions 'limit' and 'query' in context (returns up to limit endpoints, search by host or URL substring), which adds some meaning. However, it does not explain the 'sort' parameter (values, format). It partially compensates but not fully for three parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the tool's function: searching the catalogue via host or URL substring and returning matching endpoints. It indicates key outputs (latest verdict, total match count) and provides a hint about its intended use case. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that search is by string matching, which is implied but could be clearer. It is distinct from siblings as it focuses on endpoints rather than statuses or reports.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides a clear usage suggestion: 'Use this first when you do not know the exact resource URL.' This gives the agent a strategy for tool selection. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the guidance implies that if you know the exact URL, other tools may be more direct. This is adequate but not exhaustive.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.